Don't want to be overly critical mate but what exactly is your plan with the staking here. I just read your first page again and you suggested pretty much every bet was going to be one unit and then last week when I questioned how come you had nearly 10% (47 units total) of your roll on Djokovic was it because you thought it was one of the best bets ever you responded yes yet this week you have had 60 units on one match and then 10 units on a single set in running and now 25 points on an individual game. You have obviously had some good results but I am starting to wonder how much of it is down to your tennis expertise and how much is down to just bizarre and haphazard staking and chasing in running. It is almost Martingale-esque
Right, will answer. Probably be tl;dr.
Originally planned for small stake, low risk backing of players outright before matches. Was comfortable doing it and it was going fairly well. I've since found and very much believe that the best way to make money is betting in-play. I will still back players I can't always watch for smaller amounts, i.e. for 10 units or less (occasionally more if I really like a bet); however I think it's OK to be willing to risk more in certain situations if you're watching the action as it actually unfolds. Your eyes are your greatest tools. Somebody can give you all the stats you like, but if what your seeing isn't in line with those stats then you shouldn't be afraid to oppose them.
Some of my worst bets in recent weeks have come when I've either placed a pre-match bet and relied far too much on my stats or when I've refused to back my judgment and made mistakes following the market. A perfect example of being reliant on stats was the Baghdatis pre-match to win 2-0 bet that I made today. Statistically you could justify the selection, but on the face of it he was far too short. I won't go into extensive detail as to why as it'll bore you, but that's a perfect example of where I'll hold my hands up and say I made a bad call and used poor reasoning for it.
An example of following the market and ignoring what was in front of my eyes was the Cibulkova match today. I'd decided Razzano was awful and Cibulkova would definitely mount a comeback; I saw the market prices and they seemed to agree and I convinced myself I was right. Yet the reality is when I really analyse the bets I made, I was actually watching Cibulkova struggle quite badly and as such should never have backed her as heavily as I did. I allowed too many external factors to distract me from what I was really witnessing.
The Montanes match was a car crash. I tried to trade out back Montanes to win 2-0 as he was all over Monaco like a rash. I think of the 3 games Monaco won in the first set, not one of them was without Montanes at least getting to 30 on his serve whilst Montanes sailed through his. I made a mistake and wrote Monaco off, I just didn't see him coming back and he well and truly turned the tables on me and left me in trouble.
I appreciate it's a risk to be sticking a large % of your bankroll up in just one match. I'm no expert, never pretended I am and will never pretend too be. I think I can see matches for what they are and react accordingly. Sometimes I will get it wrong (Montanes), other times I will get pick out a gem (Benesova @ 8/1 in-play). I might need a lesson in two on better bankroll management, but this entire year was about learning for me. I hadn't bet on tennis properly for 18 months or so and was rusty.
Whilst I enjoy backing lots of matches for smaller stakes, it's harder to get a true picture for what's happening if you're unable to witness the action. I've come to the realisation I'd rather back less matches but bet larger if I am doing it in-play as I can watch the action unfold and make more informed decisions.
You might be right. I might be making haphazard, crazy bets and getting lucky. We'll see. I personally don't believe that's the case, but the only way to prove that is to carry on.
Author